Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:37:03.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Would Japanese Withdrawal from the League Affect the Status of the Japanese Mandate?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Luther Harris Evans
Luther Harris Evans*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Note
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1933 , pp. 140 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Procès-Verbal of the Fourth Session of the Council of the League of Nations, Annex 43, p. 149.

2 Ibid., Annex 30b, p. 27.

3 Brown, , Marshall, Philip, “The Mandate over Armenia,” This Journal, Vol. 14 (1920), pp. 396–399 Google Scholar.

4 League of Nations Official Journal, 1920, p. 334.

5 ProfessorGoudy, , “On Mandatory Government in the Law of Nations,” in Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 3rd ser., I (1919), Part III, p. 179 Google Scholar.

6 Wright, Quincy, Mandates Under the League of Nations, Chicago, 1930, pp. 439-440.

7 Furukaki, P. T., Les mandats internationally de la Société des Nations , Lyons, 1923, pp. 95–96 Google Scholar.

8 League of Nations Official Journal, 1920, p. 334.

9 Stoyanovsky, J., La théorie générale des mandats internationaux , Paris, 1925, p. 55 Google Scholar. Stoyanovsky believes the offer of the Armenian mandate to the United States was made on the assumption that the United States would become a member of the League, and that when it was clear that the United States would not become a member, negotiations were broken off. In view of the resolution of Congress, this explanation appears entirely gratuitous. In agreement with Stoyanovsky is Pallieri, I mandati delta Società delle Nazioni, Turin, 1928, pp. 54–57.